Is it just me or is it hard to take a /his/ board seriously when no one really posts sources at all?
what else do you expect from an uzbekistant claymation bulletin board
>>1368508
fuck off nerd
>>1368528
Make me poindexter
>>1368508
>sources
Go fuck yourself like any of us are gonna apply any effort and finger strength to google for sources.
>>1368530
Way to out yourself as a retard who would prefer to dwell in a low effort board.
Sources are vital for any discussion to prove a point and further inform.
This board is for discussion, it's not an academic conference. When you discuss things in person with people, do you have a list of sources and carry your books/journals around with you? No? It's the same idea here, if you think someone is saying some bullshit, you look it up yourself and read more about it.
>>1370197
Fuck this shit honestly. I mean, why bother with coming up rules when they aren't enforced at all.
Half of the threads are like redpill/whatwrong
>wanting sources for facts that are obvious or thoroughly accepted as being true just because posters are lazy/insane/deluded/triggered
It's as if I went on /sci/ and I had to give sources for saying "the Earth goes around the sun."
Arguments that turn into googling matches are boring. If you want boring arguments, you can find that pretty much anywhere on the internet.
>>1368549
Sources arent vital to discussion. Sources kill discussion because who wants to spent 30 minutes on each post finding real sources.
Look at /r/askhistorians, there is zero discussion in 99% of posts. Some very high quality posts but no discussion.
Anon boards suit discussion and debate much more than those single highly sourced posts like on reddit.
>>1370585
>implying anyone on /sci/ actually talks about science and not just a bunch of kids stuck in uni needing help with math home work and career path advice
>>1370636
>implying anyone in /his/ actually talks about history and not just a bunch of NEETs who couldn't find jobs with their degrees and Christfag fundies
>>1370598
this.
Also fuck off, there is a large concentration of history majors on this board and we don't feel like writing you a fucking academic essay during our free time. We have more important things to worry about like collecting unemployment benefits.
This board is for baiting autists. Occasionally there will be decent discussion 1 out of 100 posts, but for the most part this place is a shithole. Forums where posts are recorded(where they have a 'history', heh) are the best.
>>1370603
Sources are vital to the discussion in a debate, though, particularly about history.
If you're making a claim, it's essential to know where the claim is coming from. Primary sources? Another historian's theory--and if so, where did they get their information? And so on.
>>1370710
Good discussion here really can't exist anyways. 4chan isn't open to it. It happens when a group of autists ignore literally anyone else discussing, providing artificial limitations which would be necessary to cut out unnecessary bantz.
>>1370603
And which one is more on topic, informative, and productive? This board supports pedantry and low-effort bickering.
